Is interference with privacy a specific intent crime

Whether interference with privacy is a specific intent crime

This appeal raised two (2) issues:  (1) whether a defendant forfeits a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that is based on a statutory interpretation argument when he fails to raise it in the trial court? and (2) how to apply the intent element i subdivision 1(a) of the Minnesota criminal interference with privacy statute, Minn. Stat. §609.746.  Specifically, whether a criminal defendant charged with interference with privacy under subdivision 1(a) must have specific intent to intrude upon or interfere with the victim’s privacy when he enters the property of another, or if it is sufficient that the State prove this intent only when he gazes, stare or peeps through the victim’s window.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that (1) a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence that is based on a statutory interpretation argument may be raised for the first time on appeal; and (2) subdivision 1(a) of the criminal interference with privacy statute does not require the State to prove that the defendant possessed the intent to intrude upon or interfere with a victim’s privacy when he entered the property of another.  Affirmed.

State v. Pakhnyuk, A17-0474, Minnesota Supreme Court.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


DISCLAIMER: Throughout this website, there are statements on various laws. Please note that this is not legal advice, and no reliance should be taken thereon, and an attorney client relationship is not established hereby. Further, please note that these legal statements may not currently be up to date, because the laws can change daily, and this website does not. Thus, you will always need to actually retain a lawyer to establish an attorney client relationship, to rely upon any advice, and to obtain up-to-date legal research. Thank you.